SEK 65 million is just the Court Administration budget, which covers, as explained before, the King's Household, the Queen's Household, Crown Princess Victoria's household, and the Royal Mews. A roughly equal amount (SEK 62.5 million) is further allocated for maintenance of the Royal Palaces and the Royal Collection. The Royal Djugården administration is, on the other hand, a separate self-funded public trust whose revenue comes from commercial rents and leases, but, unlike the Crown Estate in the UK or the Donation Royale in Belgium, is a department of the Royal Court.

What I find most surprising is that, in addition to all of the above, the Finance Department of the Royal Court also manages , according to its website, the personal finances of the Royal Family, which is odd in my opinion.

I suppose we live in a world today where some people feel because certain people are public figures that their expenses need to be justified and this may be true in the case if you supposedly live on tax payers money ( I am not Swedish but I have the most respect for Swedish people and their laws so I men nobody any offense by any means) but I do think that anything private where that money goes what they do it with it doesn't deserve to be looked at.

I don't understand the Appange issue lately that came up with the king's two youngest children. Was this topic even discussed 10-20 years ago? Probably not. Today seems far more focused on knowing more than maybe we are entitled to know.

An article about the portfolios of the royal family.
The court's chief financial officer Jan Lindman emphasizes that equity portfolios is only one of several asset classes in the royal family's wealth.
- We are trying to balance the risks by having different asset classes, like the equity and fixed income funds. It is planned for long term and quite traditional.
It is no coincidence that much of the royal family's equity investment are in Swedish shares.
- What the royal family does in this is to invest in Swedish equities because they believe in Sweden, says Lindman.
Lindman has the authority to buy and sell shares. The royal family is informed only afterwards if the stores.
- Since the royal family in general, especially the king, are very well informed about things in society through their positions and through the contacts they have in the business world, they are not personally informed decisions on individual stocks. The type of decision I take individually. I inform them afterwards, he says.Här är kungahusets stora aktievinnare – hela familjen _ Dina Pengar

In documents that Expressen has noted, it appears that the court wants the government to allocate almost SEK 55 million to increase the security of the Royal Palace.
The security around the court doesn't "no longer match the requirements that should be met". The threat scenario towards the Royal Palace, where King Carl Gustaf and the other members of the Royal Family have their workplace, is identified as "most acute".
This is evidenced by a document sent to the Ministry of Finance, where the Marshal of the Realm Svante Lindqvist and the Governor of the Royal Palaces Staffan Larsson request that the government allocates almost SEK 55 million to increase security at the Royal Palace.
The document shows that the court now conducts a systematic security work where the need of the security and protection is reviewed. The process will take several years - and the court says that they will return annually with suggestions on how to strengthen the security of their work.
"This year, the focus has been on safety at the Royal Palace in Stockholm, when the threat scenario to workplace of the Head of state was identified as most acute. The reason is partly the changing threat scenario that is found against public goals, and partly that it has been a long time since the Palace was invented in terms of physical security", says the document.
The cost of raising the security is estimated at SEK 54.9 million in four years. The Royal court wants 51 million to be given to The National Property Board, which is property manager for the Palace, while SEK 3.9 million is to be distributed to the court in order to increase security.
"It is the wish of the Royal court that the necessary resources are made available so that the security of the Head of state can be guaranteed", the court writes in the letter.
Lena Westin, the Senior Adviser at the Ministry of Finance, said that the request for more money was not included in the court's budget foundation to 2018, sent in March.
- The budget process has already been going on for a long time. It is very urgent in such cases if a positive decision can be made. We must look at what possibilities there are.
"This appeal is about increasing the security of the royal Palaces (which are open for public), ie the Palaces owned by The National Property Board. It should not be blended with the annual allocation to the Royal court, states the Governor of the Royal Palaces Staffan Larsson in an email to Expressen.
When do you hope that the money will be suppllied?
"It is important that the safety work is taken seriously. With this appeal, the process of raising the security around the Palace together with The National Property Board is under way."
Larsson also writes that the king is kept informed about the safety work at the Palace.
"The king is informed of the major overall security issues."Hovet kräver 55 miljoner extra till säkerheten på Slottet _ Kungligt _ Expressen

Karin Lennmor, Expressen's royal commentator wrote at her chronicle on 15th September:

Is it reasonable that we pay for the entire royal family?
The royal family grows fast. In seven years, the king's family has been extended with three people married to it and six grandchildren, with seventh on the way.
Such a large family means of course increased costs.
Many ask me: "Is it really reasonable that we pay and maintain the entire royal family?"
This year, the royal house received SEK 137 million from the state. The entire sum was paid in January. Little less than half goes to the maintenance of the eleven palaces. The remaining millions, about 70, go to the Royal Court. The king decides how the money is distributed.
Jan Lindman, the Treasurer of the court, has told that everyone who is part of the Order of Succession gets apanage.
The sum the king requests from the state has increased quite dramatically since 2010. The predictions show that the apanage will continue to increase by about eight million a year until 2020. The court says that the security measures make them need more money.
Recently, liberal politician Robert Hannah said:
- It is unreasonable for the state to provide such a large family.
And more and more people actually begin to think about that. Even I.
Is there any reason for providing seven, maybe even more, prince and princess families in the future when all these children grow up?
That the head of state and his wife get apanage is obviously natural. That Crown Princess Victoria and her family get money is also okay, she is the heir to the throne.
We don't know how the apanage will be distributed when the grandchildren become adults. But speculative: Will prince Alexander be provided by the Swedish people?
Is it appropriate that we provide the entire royal family? Should members of the royal family instead be allowed to work and earn their own money? Should grandchildren, princes and princesses be provided as adults?
This is more about the principle than the money. 137 million, divide it with all who live in Sweden, 10 million people, it will be SEK 13,70 per person.
I pay that gladly for having a royal house! The question is only - to whom?Är det rimligt att vi ska betala för hela den kungliga familjen_ _ Karin Lennmor _ ExpressenTranslation

Jan Lindman, the Treasurer of the court, has told that everyone who is part of the Order of Succession gets apanage.
[...]
We don't know how the apanage will be distributed when the grandchildren become adults. But speculative: Will prince Alexander be provided by the Swedish people?
Is it appropriate that we provide the entire royal family? Should members of the royal family instead be allowed to work and earn their own money? Should grandchildren, princes and princesses be provided as adults?

The current policy creates the impression that Prince Alexander and his brother and cousins will not be "allowed to work".

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

The court's press release about the policy of the Members of the Royal Family's ownership in companies from May 2014:
Members of the Royal Family may be the owner or co-owner of a commercial company. Nor are there any constitutional obstacles to the royal family to own shares or part of the company. The royal family is however restrictive when it comes to engaging in commercial activities.
The Royal Court's policy on corporate issues is inter alia, that the Royal Family should not:
Be members of the commercial companies' boards
Be ceo or vice ceo
Be full-time employeesPolicy kring Kungafamiljens ägande av bolag - Sveriges Kungahus

While the king's children and children-in-law allegedly have millions of dollars in private wealth, will it be adequate to maintain Prince Carl Philip's and Princess Madeleine's children, children-in-law and grandchildren without obtaining taxpayer funds?

Further, granting that all of the Royal Family (not merely the members of the Royal House) are forbidden to seek full-time employment, will taxpayers be requested to provide for all eventual descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf whose spouses are not sufficiently wealthy to provide for them?

I would hope they change that policy as it is quite absurd that the Swedish people would need to provide for Alexander, Gabriel, Leonore and Nicholas. If the expectation is that the brothers and sisters of the heir also fulfill royal duties it seems reasonable to provide for them but in most countries the tendency is to lower the number of active members (and the number of titled members) instead of increase them. However, it looks like Carl Gustaf likes to both hand-out title and money to his descendants.

I don't believe that there currently is a limit in degree of sanguinity for being in the line of succession, so according to the treasurer in a few generations the Swedes should be paying for probably more than 40 princes and princess/descendents of Carl Gustaf as long as they are members of the Lutheran church and grew up in Sweden...

In the mean time they could still work as long as it is part-time (would working for two different organizations half-time also count as full-time?). Interestingly the policy talks about commercial activities and 'corporate issues', so could they work (full time) for a not-for-profit organization?

I would hope they change that policy as it is quite absurd that the Swedish people would need to provide for Alexander, Gabriel, Leonore and Nicholas. If the expectation is that the brothers and sisters of the heir also fulfill royal duties it seems reasonable to provide for them but in most countries the tendency is to lower the number of active members (and the number of titled members) instead of increase them. However, it looks like Carl Gustaf likes to both hand-out title and money to his descendants.

I don't believe that there currently is a limit in degree of sanguinity for being in the line of succession, so according to the treasurer in a few generations the Swedes should be paying for probably more than 40 princes and princess/descendents of Carl Gustaf as long as they are members of the Lutheran church and grew up in Sweden...

In the mean time they could still work as long as it is part-time (would working for two different organizations half-time also count as full-time?). Interestingly the policy talks about commercial activities and 'corporate issues', so could they work (full time) for a not-for-profit organization?

In the thread for general news, JR76 has shared this news regarding a parliamentary committee's ideas for reforms to the monarchy, even the financing of the royal family.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR76

The Swedish Committee of the Constitution have in an article in Svenska Dagbladet declared their intention to, among other things, look over & reintroduce parts of the the Royal Swedish Orders of which some where abolished in 1975 & some can since then only be handed out to foreign citizens.
It's their voiced intention to reintroduce those abolished & reform the ones in present use. The same goes for the Royal medals.
It's also the committee's intention to look over what challenges a fast growing Royal house has and eventually even clarify which of those in the line of succession who will be expected to perform public duties and receive public funding for doing so. The committee states very clearly that it stands behind the monarchy but the to maintain the legitimacy of the office it has to be reformed.
In my mind the result could be some rule about only kids of monarch and heir gets funding for performing duties

The committee's intent to restrain public funding for the royal family is easy to understand, but if some members of the royal family will be required to support themselves, we can expect that their corporate careers will create fresh controversies, as Chris O'Neill can attest to (in spite of not being an official member of the royal family).

Or does the royal family control enough private money to support everybody in the line of succession in 25 years time without requiring them to work?

Otherwise, I suppose reserving public funding to children of the king and children of the crown princess would also compel King Carl XVI Gustaf to withdraw his ban on royal family members engaging in commercial work or at least limit the ban to members who receive public funding.

Svensk Damtidning wrote in 2015 that king Carl Gustaf's fortune is about 340 million SEK.
Victoria, Carl Philip and Madeleine inherited 5 million SEK each from prince Bertil, and they inherited 10 million SEK each from princess Lilian. Queen Silvia inherited 5 million SEK from princess Lilian.
Victoria, Carl Philip and Madeleine own together company Gluonen AB, which holds shares and funds worth almost 34 million SEK (2017).
Dagens Industri wrote some weeks ago that Daniel has earned several million SEK with his gym company in recent years.Kungabarnen –*Victoria, Carl Philip och Madeleine går med vinst _ Dina pengarPrins Daniel inspirerar unga att starta eget

In the thread for general news, JR76 has shared this news regarding a parliamentary committee's ideas for reforms to the monarchy, even the financing of the royal family.

The committee's intent to restrain public funding for the royal family is easy to understand, but if some members of the royal family will be required to support themselves, we can expect that their corporate careers will create fresh controversies, as Chris O'Neill can attest to (in spite of not being an official member of the royal family).

Or does the royal family control enough private money to support everybody in the line of succession in 25 years time without requiring them to work?

Otherwise, I suppose reserving public funding to children of the king and children of the crown princess would also compel King Carl XVI Gustaf to withdraw his ban on royal family members engaging in commercial work or at least limit the ban to members who receive public funding.

The ban, as far as I understand it, is on members of the royal family having a salaried job or sitting on company boards. It doesn’t prevent them from owning shares in a company and earning dividends. In fact, my understanding is that both Daniel, Carl Philip and Madeleine own private business companies .

I am assuming that there are lots of loopholes to the “ban” then. Furthermore, officially only the King, the Queen and the Crown Princess ( or rather, their respective househiolds) get direct public funding.

On another note, I am glad the committee is reconsidering the possibility of awarding royal orders to non-Royal Swedish citizens. It was terribly unfair that those honors were not available to Swedes, especially considering that they are awarded in other European countries to national citizens, even in republics.

I also hope that the committee takes the time to clarify in the law who is entitled to the dignity of Prince/Princess of Sweden and to receive royal duchies, which have been in a legal limbo since 1975.

The ban, as far as I understand it, is on members of the royal family having a salaried job or sitting on company boards. It doesn’t prevent them from owning shares in a company and earning dividends. In fact, my understanding is that both Daniel, Carl Philip and Madeleine own private business companies .

I am assuming that there are lots of loopholes to the “ban” then. Furthermore, officially only the King, the Queen and the Crown Princess ( or rather, their respective househiolds) get direct public funding.

At the press release at the court websíte quoted in Tatiana Maria's post it is said:
Members of the royal family can be the owner or owners of commercial companies. Nor there are any constitutional hindrance to the royal family to own shares in a company.
The Royal Court's policy on corporate issues is inter alia, that the Royal Family should not:
Be members of the commercial companies' boards
Be ceo or vice ceo
Be full-time employees

It doesn't say that a member of the royal family can't get salary, just that he/she can't be a full-time employee.

It has been written many times in swedish newspapers (and quoted here at the forum), that King Carl Gustaf own shares of various companies, Daniel owns still the shares of his gyms which he bought when he founded them and worked there as a ceo, Carl Philip own shares of his company CPhB Design and Bernadotte & Kylberg. They get dividends from their shares.
The court gave also a press release in 2014 telling that Madeleine owns 5 % of the shares of three of Chris's companies.Kommentar med anledning av medieuppgifter om Prinsessan Madeleine och styrelseuppdrag - Sveriges Kungahus

At the press release at the court websíte quoted in Tatiana Maria's post it is said:
Members of the royal family can be the owner or owners of commercial companies. Nor there are any constitutional hindrance to the royal family to own shares in a company.
The Royal Court's policy on corporate issues is inter alia, that the Royal Family should not:
Be members of the commercial companies' boards
Be ceo or vice ceo
Be full-time employees

It doesn't say that a member of the royal family can't get salary, just that he/she can't be a full-time employee.

It has been written many times in swedish newspapers (and quoted here at the forum), that King Carl Gustaf own shares of various companies, Daniel owns still the shares of his gyms which he bought when he founded them and worked there as a ceo, Carl Philip own shares of his company CPhB Design and Bernadotte & Kylberg. They get dividends from their shares.
The court gave also a press release in 2014 telling that Madeleine owns 5 % of the shares of three of Chris's companies.Kommentar med anledning av medieuppgifter om Prinsessan Madeleine och styrelseuppdrag - Sveriges Kungahus

Thanks, Lady Finn. That is more or less what I thought except that I had confused "being a full-time employee" with having a salaried job. That means the policy is even more flexible than I thought. They can even get a salary as long as they only work "part-time", whatever that means.

Frankly, if they are not full-time royals like the Crown Princess, I don't see the need for those confusing and ambiguous rules. The cadet princes and princesses should have normal professional careers like Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands, or Prince Lorenz of Belgium for example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody

I don't believe that there currently is a limit in degree of sanguinity for being in the line of succession, so according to the treasurer in a few generations the Swedes should be paying for probably more than 40 princes and princess/descendents of Carl Gustaf as long as they are members of the Lutheran church and grew up in Sweden...

And as long as they don't marry without consent, which may be a practical, albeit inefficient way to limit the line of succession. Since the King is the only one who can ask the government to consent to a marriage of a prince or princess of Sweden, it suffices for him not to do so to exclude someone and his/her descendants from the succession.

I sincerely hope, however, that the committee finds a better solution , which would be to write into the Act of Succession a limitation not necessarily on the number of people in line to the throne, but on the number of descendants of the King who can be princes/princesses of Sweden. If a person is in the line of succession, but is not an HRH, I assume he/she is not a member of the Royal House and, therefore, is not entitled to receiving funds from the apanage. Furthermore, as I also said before, they can also take the opportunity to lay down regulations for the awarding of royal duchies, which ceased to exist in 1975 causing duchies to be granted today by unwritten royal prerogative, which is undesirable.

Svensk Damtidning wrote in 2015 that king Carl Gustaf's fortune is about 340 million SEK.
Victoria, Carl Philip and Madeleine inherited 5 million SEK each from prince Bertil, and they inherited 10 million SEK each from princess Lilian. Queen Silvia inherited 5 million SEK from princess Lilian.
Victoria, Carl Philip and Madeleine own together company Gluonen AB, which holds shares and funds worth almost 34 million SEK (2017).
Dagens Industri wrote some weeks ago that Daniel has earned several million SEK with his gym company in recent years.Kungabarnen –*Victoria, Carl Philip och Madeleine går med vinst _ Dina pengarPrins Daniel inspirerar unga att starta eget

Thanks! How many generations of descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf could be supported by these inheritances, assuming none of them work for their living?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody

In the mean time they could still work as long as it is part-time (would working for two different organizations half-time also count as full-time?). Interestingly the policy talks about commercial activities and 'corporate issues', so could they work (full time) for a not-for-profit organization?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The ban, as far as I understand it, is on members of the royal family having a salaried job or sitting on company boards. It doesn’t prevent them from owning shares in a company and earning dividends. In fact, my understanding is that both Daniel, Carl Philip and Madeleine own private business companies .

I am assuming that there are lots of loopholes to the “ban” then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

At the press release at the court websíte quoted in Tatiana Maria's post it is said:
Members of the royal family can be the owner or owners of commercial companies. Nor there are any constitutional hindrance to the royal family to own shares in a company.
The Royal Court's policy on corporate issues is inter alia, that the Royal Family should not:
Be members of the commercial companies' boards
Be ceo or vice ceo
Be full-time employees

It doesn't say that a member of the royal family can't get salary, just that he/she can't be a full-time employee.

It has been written many times in swedish newspapers (and quoted here at the forum), that King Carl Gustaf own shares of various companies, Daniel owns still the shares of his gyms which he bought when he founded them and worked there as a ceo, Carl Philip own shares of his company CPhB Design and Bernadotte & Kylberg. They get dividends from their shares.
The court gave also a press release in 2014 telling that Madeleine owns 5 % of the shares of three of Chris's companies.Kommentar med anledning av medieuppgifter om Prinsessan Madeleine och styrelseuppdrag - Sveriges Kungahus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno

That means the policy is even more flexible than I thought. They can even get a salary as long as they only work "part-time", whatever that means.

When I think about it, I agree that the King's policy on corporate issues has too many loopholes to be effective. It is hard to imagine a situation in which a royal's part-time employment with a divisive corporation would prompt less outrage than being employed full time by the same corporation, for instance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Since the King is the only one who can ask the government to consent to a marriage of a prince or princess of Sweden, it suffices for him not to do so to exclude someone and his/her descendants from the succession.

I sincerely hope, however, that the committee finds a better solution , which would be to write into the Act of Succession a limitation not necessarily on the number of people in line to the throne, but on the number of descendants of the King who can be princes/princesses of Sweden. If a person is in the line of succession, but is not an HRH, I assume he/she is not a member of the Royal House and, therefore, is not entitled to receiving funds from the apanage.

The allocation of the appanage currently rests with the King, and his treasurer's statement that everyone who is part of the line of succession receives an appanage suggests that the King considers entitlement to part of the appanage to be based on succession rights.

After the HRH predicate was attached to the Swedish royal family, every person with succession rights has used it and been a prince or a princess, which I think means they were members of the royal house.

The Expressen article says that the committee expects to limit the number of members of the royal house who carry out official duties. Apparently they have no plans to amend the constitution to limit the size of the royal house or the line of succession, which as you said can be limited simply by marrying without the consent of the government.

According to the policy of the royal court, Carl Philip could get salary from his part-time work at Bernadotte & Kylberg. I don't remember that it has been written at the media if he gets salary or not.

According to the policy of the royal court, Carl Philip could get salary from his part-time work at Bernadotte & Kylberg. I don't remember that it has been written at the media if he gets salary or not.

According to this article citing the royal tax returns for 2016 he does not get any salary but instead income from "passiv näringsverksamhet" which if I interpret it correctly means that the co-owner Kylberg is the one running the business day to day while Carl-Philip isn't actively involved in that area of the business. https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/kun...iljonapanaget/